process code for routing idoc

[Mahil]

Hello Everyone,

I am creating partner profile for routing creation using idoc. what is inbound process code routing.

[Dominik_Tylczynski]

Hello @Mahil 

The /SAPMP/ROUTING ALE message type is generated from the /SAPMP/BAPI_ROUTING_PROCESS BAPI

Therefore you should use the BAPI process code, in my opinion.

Best regards

Dominik Tylczynski

[Mahil]

Thank you so much for your reply.

[Mahil]

Hello sir, I maintain 'BAPI' as process code. but I receive this message No partner exists with the name '', type '' in Start IDoc Creation. Note: File port, partner type and partner profile maintained .

[Losap1991]

Hi Dominik — I’ve been running into similar issues with distributing routings and BOMs via ALE, especially when it involves alternative BOMs, routings with multiple counters, alternative sequences/branches, BOM allocations, and object dependencies. So far I’ve tried both /SAPMP/ROUT and POIM, using different message types. In both cases, I’m seeing gaps in the message structures that cause the inbound IDoc to fail or behave inconsistently in the receiving system. For example: • When I use /SAPMP/ROUT, the inbound IDoc fails because the routing alternative sequence/branch number isn’t populated in the IDoc. • When I use POIM, the inbound IDoc see does carry the branch number, but then it references the BOM group number from the sending (DEV) system, instead of resolving/using the group number in the receiving (QAS) system. I was expecting it to derive or map the group number based on what exists inbound. I also tried /LOI/ROU, but I’m not able to set the correct process type (e.g., via BAdI), and I end up with the same error that Mahil mentioned. All that to say: this has been a pretty frustrating rabbit hole, but your post honestly gave me hope that there’s a clean way to troubleshoot this. Question: In your screenshot, what is the transaction code you’re referencing? And how would you use it to analyze issues like the ones above? Also, from your experience, what’s the best way to isolate whether the root cause is: • missing/unsupported fields in the IDoc/message type, • a process/config issue in ALE/IDoc inbound, • or master data assumptions (group counters, internal numbering, allocations, etc.) that don’t translate cleanly across systems? Any guidance on how you’d approach troubleshooting — or what else I should try — would be hugely appreciated. It’s hard to believe there isn’t a stable solution for this.